March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Fantastic objects | Main | Aerotropolis delayed »

Jun 04, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

designation

There needs to be a serious discussion of whether or not the people who led the formal campaign against the amendment (Protect NC Families) are up to leading the larger LGBT movement in North Carolina.

They raised more money than any anti-amendment campaign in the South (except perhaps Florida), and they were more soundly defeated than the 2006 amendment campaign in Virginia (a similarly bad and broad amendment in a state somewhat similar to NC).

More money, six years later in the movement, and worse results. The data speaks for itself.

It's not entirely clear who was really in charge at Protect NC Families -- or if anyone was really in charge -- but those who claimed leadership in this matter owe some explanation, if not apologies, to the LGBT community and others in NC.

Account Deleted

One thing that stood out to me was how active local churches, especially in rural areas, were in this campaign. Where I live one of the most well placed churches has an electronic sign right next to one of the busiest intersections in town. For two weeks prior to the primary their sign read "God stands for marriage. Will you?"

I also noticed in travels along rural highways many, many pro amendment signs in the front lawns of churches. I can't recall seeing political signs on church property unless it was a voting precinct in the past.

So an engaged Christian values base may have more to do with the larger deficit despite the increased funding of the LGBT community.

designation

"Engaged Christian values" bases existed in other amendment campaigns in other states.

Virginia stands out as the most comparable in my mind.

You also touch on messagaing which I think is Ed's larger point, and it is what I think was the missing point by the formal campaign and their consultants.

This was defined early on as a "marriage amendment" or the "domestic violence amendment" not the "civil unions-banning amendment" that would have resonated better with voters.

Year after year of polling -- and greatly increased polling in recents months -- demonstrated this civil unions-angle beyond any doubt, but a different path was chosen by the Protect NC Families campaign. Even Skip Stam walked back his support of such a broad amendment in the final days of the campaign.

Who made that decision to go with something other than the poll-tested "civil union" messaging? And who hired the person(s) that made that decision?

The comments to this entry are closed.